The Title of the thread should hopefully convey that I'm not implying that atheismitself is a crutch. Without getting into theological reasoning, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that a God/god exists for A or B reason. Open to a variety of reasons not necessitating anything particularly controversial. I think there are probably many atheists who don't know who Richard Dawkins is. (I've found that a number of people in general never heard of him). From time to time, even in forums such as these we observe atheists who have no apparent problem with theism or religion. They prefer cable, the theist prefers satellite, and it's no reason not to get together on Sunday to watch Football.

I do suspect however that atheism can be a crutch.

First off, there's a tendency for groups of any kind to have members favor members of their same group. For instance, when someone favors members of their race or ethnicity, a certain amount of care needs to be taken so as not to appear racist, but we can see this in action in subtle ways. Take combat sports like boxing. Whenever there is a top contender from any nation, he often has an entourage of supporters that relate to the fighter as a part of their own nationality. And spectators often sport their national flag in the stands to identify their fighter with their nation. Manny Pacquiao is a good example. In fact the nationalism we see amongst boxing fans is probably more ethnocentric in nature as opposed to national patriotism. In the U.S., a more multi-cultural nation, Americans in general I think are less likely to have it's fans support a fighter because their fighter is American. They may have more of a tendency to favor a fighter because of the fighter's character. I think many Americans in general favored Pacquiao due to his more gentle demeanor over the American fighter Floyd Mayweather who exhibits a more brash demeanor. In fact many Pacquiao supporters are probably ethnic Filipino-American citizens. But the point is, I think there's something in the human psyche that likes to see someone within their own ethnic camp physically dominate someone outside of their ethnic camp. So it's a bit more socially acceptable to suggest ethnic physical superiority if it's displayed in the context of nationalistic/patriotic fervor. A Filipino boxing fan praising Pacquiao is not viewed as racist, but someone more akin to rooting for one's nation like they do in the Olympic games, or even merely following their local or favorite sports team. It's when someone gets into suggestions of racial/ethnic intelligence and physical beauty superiority that one can find themselves in hot water.

But what about atheist activists (whether as part of an organization, or in general social connections)? Are some similar to the flag waving boxing fan supporting their national/ethnic comrade in the ring? Is there a need for some atheists to portray those within their ideological camp as somehow superior to those outside their camp (i.e.,theists/religionists)?

I would say.....there's definitely signs of this.

An example. The obvious big one so to speak would be references to intellectual superiority. There have been a couple of fairly high profile studies made indicating that atheists are more intelligent than religious people. More specifically, studies made by Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman, and Satoshi Kanazawa. There's really no question that these individuals are atheists. Or at least there shouldn't be. Of course Mr. Kanazawa made a suggestion that he's not an atheist, but I think what he meant was, to put is as our brothers across the Atlantic would, he's not an arsehole atheist. Of course arguments can be made that their research is accurate, but alongside questions like what do they mean by religious people, a question of favoring ideological sentiment may very well play a huge factor as well.

So can atheism be a crutch?

I think for some, yes. And I think that (for lack of a better term) theistic religion and intelligent design can potentially pull the crutch out from under them. If we take for instance, theistic religion like Judeo-Christianity, the core of it's God-man relationship revolves around humans being primarily equivalent. Even if someone is more intelligent than another, it bears absolutely no significance in a Biblical-teleological sense. The potential problem for the atheist activist walking with the crutch of intellectual superiority is faced with his intelligence being completely credited to a higher power, their intellect merely meant to be an agent with no higher ranking than another. And even Intelligent Design minus any religious reference poses a danger of their intellect being a specific, rather than random part of their design. I think there's a certain amount of security in one believing their intelligence is due to random chance.

At 10/16/2016 7:41:06 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:The Title of the thread should hopefully convey that I'm not implying that atheismitself is a crutch. Without getting into theological reasoning, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that a God/god exists for A or B reason. Open to a variety of reasons not necessitating anything particularly controversial. I think there are probably many atheists who don't know who Richard Dawkins is. (I've found that a number of people in general never heard of him). From time to time, even in forums such as these we observe atheists who have no apparent problem with theism or religion. They prefer cable, the theist prefers satellite, and it's no reason not to get together on Sunday to watch Football.

I do suspect however that atheism can be a crutch.

First off, there's a tendency for groups of any kind to have members favor members of their same group. For instance, when someone favors members of their race or ethnicity, a certain amount of care needs to be taken so as not to appear racist, but we can see this in action in subtle ways. Take combat sports like boxing. Whenever there is a top contender from any nation, he often has an entourage of supporters that relate to the fighter as a part of their own nationality. And spectators often sport their national flag in the stands to identify their fighter with their nation. Manny Pacquiao is a good example. In fact the nationalism we see amongst boxing fans is probably more ethnocentric in nature as opposed to national patriotism. In the U.S., a more multi-cultural nation, Americans in general I think are less likely to have it's fans support a fighter because their fighter is American. They may have more of a tendency to favor a fighter because of the fighter's character. I think many Americans in general favored Pacquiao due to his more gentle demeanor over the American fighter Floyd Mayweather who exhibits a more brash demeanor. In fact many Pacquiao supporters are probably ethnic Filipino-American citizens. But the point is, I think there's something in the human psyche that likes to see someone within their own ethnic camp physically dominate someone outside of their ethnic camp. So it's a bit more socially acceptable to suggest ethnic physical superiority if it's displayed in the context of nationalistic/patriotic fervor. A Filipino boxing fan praising Pacquiao is not viewed as racist, but someone more akin to rooting for one's nation like they do in the Olympic games, or even merely following their local or favorite sports team. It's when someone gets into suggestions of racial/ethnic intelligence and physical beauty superiority that one can find themselves in hot water.

But what about atheist activists (whether as part of an organization, or in general social connections)? Are some similar to the flag waving boxing fan supporting their national/ethnic comrade in the ring? Is there a need for some atheists to portray those within their ideological camp as somehow superior to those outside their camp (i.e.,theists/religionists)?

I would say.....there's definitely signs of this.

An example. The obvious big one so to speak would be references to intellectual superiority. There have been a couple of fairly high profile studies made indicating that atheists are more intelligent than religious people. More specifically, studies made by Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman, and Satoshi Kanazawa. There's really no question that these individuals are atheists. Or at least there shouldn't be. Of course Mr. Kanazawa made a suggestion that he's not an atheist, but I think what he meant was, to put is as our brothers across the Atlantic would, he's not an arsehole atheist. Of course arguments can be made that their research is accurate, but alongside questions like what do they mean by religious people, a question of favoring ideological sentiment may very well play a huge factor as well.

So can atheism be a crutch?

I think for some, yes. And I think that (for lack of a better term) theistic religion and intelligent design can potentially pull the crutch out from under them. If we take for instance, theistic religion like Judeo-Christianity, the core of it's God-man relationship revolves around humans being primarily equivalent. Even if someone is more intelligent than another, it bears absolutely no significance in a Biblical-teleological sense. The potential problem for the atheist activist walking with the crutch of intellectual superiority is faced with his intelligence being completely credited to a higher power, their intellect merely meant to be an agent with no higher ranking than another. And even Intelligent Design minus any religious reference poses a danger of their intellect being a specific, rather than random part of their design. I think there's a certain amount of security in one believing their intelligence is due to random chance.

I would go as far as to say atheism to some is more of a wheel chair.

I think it can be used to not take responsibility for personal actions, it just relies on personal code of conduct and as long as they stick to that they would consider themselves good people...

At 10/16/2016 7:41:06 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:The Title of the thread should hopefully convey that I'm not implying that atheismitself is a crutch. Without getting into theological reasoning, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that a God/god exists for A or B reason. Open to a variety of reasons not necessitating anything particularly controversial. I think there are probably many atheists who don't know who Richard Dawkins is. (I've found that a number of people in general never heard of him). From time to time, even in forums such as these we observe atheists who have no apparent problem with theism or religion. They prefer cable, the theist prefers satellite, and it's no reason not to get together on Sunday to watch Football.

I do suspect however that atheism can be a crutch.

First off, there's a tendency for groups of any kind to have members favor members of their same group. For instance, when someone favors members of their race or ethnicity, a certain amount of care needs to be taken so as not to appear racist, but we can see this in action in subtle ways. Take combat sports like boxing. Whenever there is a top contender from any nation, he often has an entourage of supporters that relate to the fighter as a part of their own nationality. And spectators often sport their national flag in the stands to identify their fighter with their nation. Manny Pacquiao is a good example. In fact the nationalism we see amongst boxing fans is probably more ethnocentric in nature as opposed to national patriotism. In the U.S., a more multi-cultural nation, Americans in general I think are less likely to have it's fans support a fighter because their fighter is American. They may have more of a tendency to favor a fighter because of the fighter's character. I think many Americans in general favored Pacquiao due to his more gentle demeanor over the American fighter Floyd Mayweather who exhibits a more brash demeanor. In fact many Pacquiao supporters are probably ethnic Filipino-American citizens. But the point is, I think there's something in the human psyche that likes to see someone within their own ethnic camp physically dominate someone outside of their ethnic camp. So it's a bit more socially acceptable to suggest ethnic physical superiority if it's displayed in the context of nationalistic/patriotic fervor. A Filipino boxing fan praising Pacquiao is not viewed as racist, but someone more akin to rooting for one's nation like they do in the Olympic games, or even merely following their local or favorite sports team. It's when someone gets into suggestions of racial/ethnic intelligence and physical beauty superiority that one can find themselves in hot water.

But what about atheist activists (whether as part of an organization, or in general social connections)? Are some similar to the flag waving boxing fan supporting their national/ethnic comrade in the ring? Is there a need for some atheists to portray those within their ideological camp as somehow superior to those outside their camp (i.e.,theists/religionists)?

I would say.....there's definitely signs of this.

I don't think this argument works in your favour if you are trying to suggest atheists are more likely than theists to exhibit mob mentality. It's a simple fact that very few atheists belong to any organised "clan" based around their non-belief, unlike Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or pretty much any religion you care to name. Richard Dawkins, whom you mentioned, has likened organising atheists to herding cats. Most of us are far too absorbed with other things to be bothered.

An example. The obvious big one so to speak would be references to intellectual superiority. There have been a couple of fairly high profile studies made indicating that atheists are more intelligent than religious people. More specifically, studies made by Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman, and Satoshi Kanazawa. There's really no question that these individuals are atheists. Or at least there shouldn't be. Of course Mr. Kanazawa made a suggestion that he's not an atheist, but I think what he meant was, to put is as our brothers across the Atlantic would, he's not an arsehole atheist. Of course arguments can be made that their research is accurate, but alongside questions like what do they mean by religious people, a question of favoring ideological sentiment may very well play a huge factor as well.

I think atheists who mock or belittle theists and theists who mock or belittle atheists are probably pretty much on par. I don't think either side has a monopoly on arseholiness.

So can atheism be a crutch?

I think for some, yes. And I think that (for lack of a better term) theistic religion and intelligent design can potentially pull the crutch out from under them. If we take for instance, theistic religion like Judeo-Christianity, the core of it's God-man relationship revolves around humans being primarily equivalent. Even if someone is more intelligent than another, it bears absolutely no significance in a Biblical-teleological sense. The potential problem for the atheist activist walking with the crutch of intellectual superiority is faced with his intelligence being completely credited to a higher power, their intellect merely meant to be an agent with no higher ranking than another. And even Intelligent Design minus any religious reference poses a danger of their intellect being a specific, rather than random part of their design. I think there's a certain amount of security in one believing their intelligence is due to random chance.

I would go as far as to say atheism to some is more of a wheel chair.

The fact that someone chooses to credit my intelligence (or lack of it) to a non-existent higher power is of no consequence to me. It might be to them.

Your entire argument is based on a flawed understanding. You haven't described a crutch (something to lean on in times of need). What has been identified is the tendency human beings have to be tribal. As another poster has commented, atheists are quite poor in that respect so it is unclear to me why you have singled them out. You seem to have an agenda to make atheists look bad. Ironically you do so by choosing a subject which is more commonly associated with theism. It's as if you admit that this is a problem for theists but you would like to tar atheists with the same brush. I find this, and your apparent lack of awareness of the irony, really quite amusing.

I would go as far as to say atheism to some is more of a wheel chair.

What would you say about theists with respect to God? Theism to some is more of an intensive care unit?

Fatihah: It's like your mother making spaghetti and after you taste it and don't like it, you say "well my mom must not exist". Not because their is no logical evidence but because she doesn't do what you want.

At 10/16/2016 7:41:06 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:The Title of the thread should hopefully convey that I'm not implying that atheismitself is a crutch. Without getting into theological reasoning, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that a God/god exists for A or B reason. Open to a variety of reasons not necessitating anything particularly controversial. I think there are probably many atheists who don't know who Richard Dawkins is. (I've found that a number of people in general never heard of him). From time to time, even in forums such as these we observe atheists who have no apparent problem with theism or religion. They prefer cable, the theist prefers satellite, and it's no reason not to get together on Sunday to watch Football.

I do suspect however that atheism can be a crutch.

First off, there's a tendency for groups of any kind to have members favor members of their same group. For instance, when someone favors members of their race or ethnicity, a certain amount of care needs to be taken so as not to appear racist, but we can see this in action in subtle ways. Take combat sports like boxing. Whenever there is a top contender from any nation, he often has an entourage of supporters that relate to the fighter as a part of their own nationality. And spectators often sport their national flag in the stands to identify their fighter with their nation. Manny Pacquiao is a good example. In fact the nationalism we see amongst boxing fans is probably more ethnocentric in nature as opposed to national patriotism. In the U.S., a more multi-cultural nation, Americans in general I think are less likely to have it's fans support a fighter because their fighter is American. They may have more of a tendency to favor a fighter because of the fighter's character. I think many Americans in general favored Pacquiao due to his more gentle demeanor over the American fighter Floyd Mayweather who exhibits a more brash demeanor. In fact many Pacquiao supporters are probably ethnic Filipino-American citizens. But the point is, I think there's something in the human psyche that likes to see someone within their own ethnic camp physically dominate someone outside of their ethnic camp. So it's a bit more socially acceptable to suggest ethnic physical superiority if it's displayed in the context of nationalistic/patriotic fervor. A Filipino boxing fan praising Pacquiao is not viewed as racist, but someone more akin to rooting for one's nation like they do in the Olympic games, or even merely following their local or favorite sports team. It's when someone gets into suggestions of racial/ethnic intelligence and physical beauty superiority that one can find themselves in hot water.

But what about atheist activists (whether as part of an organization, or in general social connections)? Are some similar to the flag waving boxing fan supporting their national/ethnic comrade in the ring? Is there a need for some atheists to portray those within their ideological camp as somehow superior to those outside their camp (i.e.,theists/religionists)?

I would say.....there's definitely signs of this.

An example. The obvious big one so to speak would be references to intellectual superiority. There have been a couple of fairly high profile studies made indicating that atheists are more intelligent than religious people. More specifically, studies made by Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman, and Satoshi Kanazawa. There's really no question that these individuals are atheists. Or at least there shouldn't be. Of course Mr. Kanazawa made a suggestion that he's not an atheist, but I think what he meant was, to put is as our brothers across the Atlantic would, he's not an arsehole atheist. Of course arguments can be made that their research is accurate, but alongside questions like what do they mean by religious people, a question of favoring ideological sentiment may very well play a huge factor as well.

So can atheism be a crutch?

I think for some, yes. And I think that (for lack of a better term) theistic religion and intelligent design can potentially pull the crutch out from under them. If we take for instance, theistic religion like Judeo-Christianity, the core of it's God-man relationship revolves around humans being primarily equivalent. Even if someone is more intelligent than another, it bears absolutely no significance in a Biblical-teleological sense. The potential problem for the atheist activist walking with the crutch of intellectual superiority is faced with his intelligence being completely credited to a higher power, their intellect merely meant to be an agent with no higher ranking than another. And even Intelligent Design minus any religious reference poses a danger of their intellect being a specific, rather than random part of their design. I think there's a certain amount of security in one believing their intelligence is due to random chance.

I would go as far as to say atheism to some is more of a wheel chair.

Hey Rod, let me ask you something, are you a Muslim? If not, why not?

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

At 10/16/2016 7:41:06 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:The Title of the thread should hopefully convey that I'm not implying that atheismitself is a crutch. Without getting into theological reasoning, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that a God/god exists for A or B reason.

You spent so much time waffling on and spouting your ill-gotten theory when the first sentence crashes.Atheists (who have made an informed choice) do not believe that God exists for any reason at all except if you want to classify no evidence as a reason. Pure and simple, God does not exist.

Also, you seem to be judging atheism as some sort of organization, which it is not.Unlike religion which is highly institutionalized.Do you see atheists walk into exclusive purpose-built buildings, holding hands and singing kumbayah?Do you see atheists parting with vast amounts of money for "their cause"?Do you see atheists being consoled by each other as to how to think and have sex?

Talk about a crutch....you need to pull your own head from your crutch and realise that religion is the biggest crutch around.

I think it can be used to not take responsibility for personal actions, it just relies on personal code of conduct and as long as they stick to that they would consider themselves good people...

I agree. And I think it can be used for non-action as well. For instance, we as believers get challenged to take actions we probably wouldn't do before we became believers (showing kindness to someone who hates us, etc.) We do this because of the code mandated by the creator of the Universe given to us in scripture, and when we are cognizant of the creator challenging us in our spirit man to take action in alignment with His code. It's not a popular concept in our society that, like you said, rely on personal code.

I think it can be used to not take responsibility for personal actions, it just relies on personal code of conduct and as long as they stick to that they would consider themselves good people...

I agree. And I think it can be used for non-action as well. For instance, we as believers get challenged to take actions we probably wouldn't do before we became believers (showing kindness to someone who hates us, etc.) We do this because of the code mandated by the creator of the Universe given to us in scripture, and when we are cognizant of the creator challenging us in our spirit man to take action in alignment with His code. It's not a popular concept in our society that, like you said, rely on personal code.

yes that could very true, even to the point of not altering attitudes towards people or even trying too..

At 10/16/2016 7:41:06 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:The Title of the thread should hopefully convey that I'm not implying that atheismitself is a crutch. Without getting into theological reasoning, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that a God/god exists for A or B reason. Open to a variety of reasons not necessitating anything particularly controversial. I think there are probably many atheists who don't know who Richard Dawkins is. (I've found that a number of people in general never heard of him). From time to time, even in forums such as these we observe atheists who have no apparent problem with theism or religion. They prefer cable, the theist prefers satellite, and it's no reason not to get together on Sunday to watch Football.

I do suspect however that atheism can be a crutch.

First off, there's a tendency for groups of any kind to have members favor members of their same group. For instance, when someone favors members of their race or ethnicity, a certain amount of care needs to be taken so as not to appear racist, but we can see this in action in subtle ways. Take combat sports like boxing. Whenever there is a top contender from any nation, he often has an entourage of supporters that relate to the fighter as a part of their own nationality. And spectators often sport their national flag in the stands to identify their fighter with their nation. Manny Pacquiao is a good example. In fact the nationalism we see amongst boxing fans is probably more ethnocentric in nature as opposed to national patriotism. In the U.S., a more multi-cultural nation, Americans in general I think are less likely to have it's fans support a fighter because their fighter is American. They may have more of a tendency to favor a fighter because of the fighter's character. I think many Americans in general favored Pacquiao due to his more gentle demeanor over the American fighter Floyd Mayweather who exhibits a more brash demeanor. In fact many Pacquiao supporters are probably ethnic Filipino-American citizens. But the point is, I think there's something in the human psyche that likes to see someone within their own ethnic camp physically dominate someone outside of their ethnic camp. So it's a bit more socially acceptable to suggest ethnic physical superiority if it's displayed in the context of nationalistic/patriotic fervor. A Filipino boxing fan praising Pacquiao is not viewed as racist, but someone more akin to rooting for one's nation like they do in the Olympic games, or even merely following their local or favorite sports team. It's when someone gets into suggestions of racial/ethnic intelligence and physical beauty superiority that one can find themselves in hot water.

But what about atheist activists (whether as part of an organization, or in general social connections)? Are some similar to the flag waving boxing fan supporting their national/ethnic comrade in the ring? Is there a need for some atheists to portray those within their ideological camp as somehow superior to those outside their camp (i.e.,theists/religionists)?

I would say.....there's definitely signs of this.

I don't think this argument works in your favour if you are trying to suggest atheists are more likely than theists to exhibit mob mentality. It's a simple fact that very few atheists belong to any organised "clan" based around their non-belief, unlike Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or pretty much any religion you care to name. Richard Dawkins, whom you mentioned, has likened organising atheists to herding cats. Most of us are far too absorbed with other things to be bothered.

I'm definitely not trying to suggest atheists are more likely to exhibit mob mentality than anyone. I was very specific about my reference to atheists. I know my post is long, probably causing some to skim through it. But I indicated right from the beginning that I'm not referring to atheists in general. In fact, I would say probably a small minority. The atheists I'm specifically referring to are atheist activists, some of whom do form organizations.

And I have nothing against organizations by the way. I think in a number of cases they're needed.

An example. The obvious big one so to speak would be references to intellectual superiority. There have been a couple of fairly high profile studies made indicating that atheists are more intelligent than religious people. More specifically, studies made by Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman, and Satoshi Kanazawa. There's really no question that these individuals are atheists. Or at least there shouldn't be. Of course Mr. Kanazawa made a suggestion that he's not an atheist, but I think what he meant was, to put is as our brothers across the Atlantic would, he's not an arsehole atheist. Of course arguments can be made that their research is accurate, but alongside questions like what do they mean by religious people, a question of favoring ideological sentiment may very well play a huge factor as well.

I think atheists who mock or belittle theists and theists who mock or belittle atheists are probably pretty much on par. I don't think either side has a monopoly on arseholiness.

Yes, I have no argument there. The the term I used atheist arseholes came from one of the atheists I referenced who produced an article on atheism/theism intelligence.

So can atheism be a crutch?

I think for some, yes. And I think that (for lack of a better term) theistic religion and intelligent design can potentially pull the crutch out from under them. If we take for instance, theistic religion like Judeo-Christianity, the core of it's God-man relationship revolves around humans being primarily equivalent. Even if someone is more intelligent than another, it bears absolutely no significance in a Biblical-teleological sense. The potential problem for the atheist activist walking with the crutch of intellectual superiority is faced with his intelligence being completely credited to a higher power, their intellect merely meant to be an agent with no higher ranking than another. And even Intelligent Design minus any religious reference poses a danger of their intellect being a specific, rather than random part of their design. I think there's a certain amount of security in one believing their intelligence is due to random chance.

I would go as far as to say atheism to some is more of a wheel chair.

The fact that someone chooses to credit my intelligence (or lack of it) to a non-existent higher power is of no consequence to me. It might be to them.

To them meaning who? Theists?

But I feel I need to point out my emphasis on the word some I used throughout this thread (using the italic icon). Meaning of course, this may not apply at all to you personally.

I think it can be used to not take responsibility for personal actions, it just relies on personal code of conduct and as long as they stick to that they would consider themselves good people...

I agree. And I think it can be used for non-action as well. For instance, we as believers get challenged to take actions we probably wouldn't do before we became believers (showing kindness to someone who hates us, etc.) We do this because of the code mandated by the creator of the Universe given to us in scripture, and when we are cognizant of the creator challenging us in our spirit man to take action in alignment with His code. It's not a popular concept in our society that, like you said, rely on personal code.

yes that could very true, even to the point of not altering attitudes towards people or even trying too..

Nonsensical lala, thanks.

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.
George Bernard Shaw

Your entire argument is based on a flawed understanding. You haven't described a crutch (something to lean on in times of need). What has been identified is the tendency human beings have to be tribal. As another poster has commented, atheists are quite poor in that respect so it is unclear to me why you have singled them out. You seem to have an agenda to make atheists look bad. Ironically you do so by choosing a subject which is more commonly associated with theism. It's as if you admit that this is a problem for theists but you would like to tar atheists with the same brush. I find this, and your apparent lack of awareness of the irony, really quite amusing.

Again, I have to point out, this thread is very specific in terms of who I am referencing in regards to atheists. I use the term activists as a means to give somewhat of an idea of who I'm talking about. But other than that, for all you know I may only be referring to atheists who write certain articles showing favoritism towards atheism.

So no, I'm not singling atheists in general out at all.

I don't necessarily even think tribal or mob mentality apply here. It might depend on what you mean. When I think of these 2 tendencies, I think of the idea of strength in numbers. I'm not saying this idea is the only one applicable, but some (there goes that word again) atheists seem to favor the idea of majority only when it refers to scientists. Other than that, being a minority I think is part of the security/crutch theme. Being a small enlightened group. And not forming groups, clans, organizations might be a part of that mental security blanket. A self induced assurance that only a small part of society are able to embrace a non-religious/theistic position.

I would go as far as to say atheism to some is more of a wheel chair.

What would you say about theists with respect to God? Theism to some is more of an intensive care unit?

I'll say this. I think that religion can most certainly be a crutch. I suppose theism could be as well, but I might have to do some more mental gymnastics to come up with scenarios where that one might be true.

Of course, it begs the question, is needing a crutch bad, or always bad? Obviously using a literal crutch is not bad. For a theist who of course believes in God (as i do) it would be silly not to feel a reliance on the creator who provides for them. It would be sort of like the kid benefiting from living in their parent's house, and suggesting they don't need their parents.

I wouldn't expect an atheist to feel a dependency on God. But since a number of atheists conclude it's man that creates our provisions, a number of them also have to dismiss their dependency on humans throughout history who were/are religious. That is if they want to maintain that atheists are a minority.

At 10/16/2016 7:41:06 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:The Title of the thread should hopefully convey that I'm not implying that atheismitself is a crutch. Without getting into theological reasoning, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that a God/god exists for A or B reason.

You spent so much time waffling on and spouting your ill-gotten theory when the first sentence crashes.

Atheists (who have made an informed choice) do not believe that God exists for any reason at all except if you want to classify no evidence as a reason. Pure and simple, God does not exist.

I'm a bit confused by your statement. The term A or B reason was pretty non-committal. Kind of a you-fill-in-the-blank. So all you seem to be doing is filling in the blank, and then using it as an argument against my reference to atheists not believing in a God/god. How do you manage to do that?

But while we're on that theme, are you implying that every atheist throughout history, and alive today have no other reason for not believing in God other than no evidence?

Also, you seem to be judging atheism as some sort of organization, which it is not.

No I'm not.

Unlike religion which is highly institutionalized.

Which is not really relevant to this thread.

Do you see atheists walk into exclusive purpose-built buildings, holding hands and singing kumbayah?

I've only seen a few nuns sing kumbayah on TV.

Do you see atheists parting with vast amounts of money for "their cause"?

I don't know. I would say Jessie Ventura parted out a certain quantity of money for his political cause. But I'd have to look into that one, which I don't think is particularly necessary at the moment.

Do you see atheists being consoled by each other as to how to think and have sex?

I think you're forgetting that since atheists don't congregate, this leaves a wide variety of possibilities as to what some may be doing in their private lives. And of course there have been a number of atheist dictators. And what do dictators do? Dictate.

Talk about a crutch....you need to pull your own head from your crutch and realise that religion is the biggest crutch around.

At 10/16/2016 7:41:06 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:The Title of the thread should hopefully convey that I'm not implying that atheismitself is a crutch. Without getting into theological reasoning, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that a God/god exists for A or B reason. Open to a variety of reasons not necessitating anything particularly controversial. I think there are probably many atheists who don't know who Richard Dawkins is. (I've found that a number of people in general never heard of him). From time to time, even in forums such as these we observe atheists who have no apparent problem with theism or religion. They prefer cable, the theist prefers satellite, and it's no reason not to get together on Sunday to watch Football.

I do suspect however that atheism can be a crutch.

First off, there's a tendency for groups of any kind to have members favor members of their same group. For instance, when someone favors members of their race or ethnicity, a certain amount of care needs to be taken so as not to appear racist, but we can see this in action in subtle ways. Take combat sports like boxing. Whenever there is a top contender from any nation, he often has an entourage of supporters that relate to the fighter as a part of their own nationality. And spectators often sport their national flag in the stands to identify their fighter with their nation. Manny Pacquiao is a good example. In fact the nationalism we see amongst boxing fans is probably more ethnocentric in nature as opposed to national patriotism. In the U.S., a more multi-cultural nation, Americans in general I think are less likely to have it's fans support a fighter because their fighter is American. They may have more of a tendency to favor a fighter because of the fighter's character. I think many Americans in general favored Pacquiao due to his more gentle demeanor over the American fighter Floyd Mayweather who exhibits a more brash demeanor. In fact many Pacquiao supporters are probably ethnic Filipino-American citizens. But the point is, I think there's something in the human psyche that likes to see someone within their own ethnic camp physically dominate someone outside of their ethnic camp. So it's a bit more socially acceptable to suggest ethnic physical superiority if it's displayed in the context of nationalistic/patriotic fervor. A Filipino boxing fan praising Pacquiao is not viewed as racist, but someone more akin to rooting for one's nation like they do in the Olympic games, or even merely following their local or favorite sports team. It's when someone gets into suggestions of racial/ethnic intelligence and physical beauty superiority that one can find themselves in hot water.

But what about atheist activists (whether as part of an organization, or in general social connections)? Are some similar to the flag waving boxing fan supporting their national/ethnic comrade in the ring? Is there a need for some atheists to portray those within their ideological camp as somehow superior to those outside their camp (i.e.,theists/religionists)?

I would say.....there's definitely signs of this.

An example. The obvious big one so to speak would be references to intellectual superiority. There have been a couple of fairly high profile studies made indicating that atheists are more intelligent than religious people. More specifically, studies made by Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman, and Satoshi Kanazawa. There's really no question that these individuals are atheists. Or at least there shouldn't be. Of course Mr. Kanazawa made a suggestion that he's not an atheist, but I think what he meant was, to put is as our brothers across the Atlantic would, he's not an arsehole atheist. Of course arguments can be made that their research is accurate, but alongside questions like what do they mean by religious people, a question of favoring ideological sentiment may very well play a huge factor as well.

So can atheism be a crutch?

I think for some, yes. And I think that (for lack of a better term) theistic religion and intelligent design can potentially pull the crutch out from under them. If we take for instance, theistic religion like Judeo-Christianity, the core of it's God-man relationship revolves around humans being primarily equivalent. Even if someone is more intelligent than another, it bears absolutely no significance in a Biblical-teleological sense. The potential problem for the atheist activist walking with the crutch of intellectual superiority is faced with his intelligence being completely credited to a higher power, their intellect merely meant to be an agent with no higher ranking than another. And even Intelligent Design minus any religious reference poses a danger of their intellect being a specific, rather than random part of their design. I think there's a certain amount of security in one believing their intelligence is due to random chance.

I would go as far as to say atheism to some is more of a wheel chair.

Hey Rod, let me ask you something, are you a Muslim? If not, why not?

I'm sure the first question is rhetorical, so the reason I'm not a Muslim is because there's no direct interactive relationship between Allah and man.

I'm sure the first question is rhetorical, so the reason I'm not a Muslim is because there's no direct interactive relationship between Allah and man.

There's no interaction of any gods with men. If there was, we would all know it.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

I'm sure the first question is rhetorical, so the reason I'm not a Muslim is because there's no direct interactive relationship between Allah and man.

There's no interaction of any gods with men. If there was, we would all know it.

I can hang out with the gods. In fact I just received another invitation to attend another party. I'm guessing your invitation got lost in the mail. Cheer up. I'm sure it's coming soon. Maybe not. These things tend to be a bit of a family affair.

Your entire argument is based on a flawed understanding. You haven't described a crutch (something to lean on in times of need). What has been identified is the tendency human beings have to be tribal. As another poster has commented, atheists are quite poor in that respect so it is unclear to me why you have singled them out. You seem to have an agenda to make atheists look bad. Ironically you do so by choosing a subject which is more commonly associated with theism. It's as if you admit that this is a problem for theists but you would like to tar atheists with the same brush. I find this, and your apparent lack of awareness of the irony, really quite amusing.

Again, I have to point out, this thread is very specific in terms of who I am referencing in regards to atheists. I use the term activists as a means to give somewhat of an idea of who I'm talking about. But other than that, for all you know I may only be referring to atheists who write certain articles showing favoritism towards atheism.

Whether it is so-called activist atheists or not, you are still not describing a crutch. You have failed to address the point.

So no, I'm not singling atheists in general out at all.

Sure.

I don't necessarily even think tribal or mob mentality apply here. It might depend on what you mean. When I think of these 2 tendencies, I think of the idea of strength in numbers. I'm not saying this idea is the only one applicable, but some (there goes that word again) atheists seem to favor the idea of majority only when it refers to scientists.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You seem to be waffling. What do scientists have to do with atheism?

Other than that, being a minority I think is part of the security/crutch theme.

Not by you just asserting it.

Being a small enlightened group. And not forming groups, clans, organizations might be a part of that mental security blanket.

That makes even less sense. You are waffling.

A self induced assurance that only a small part of society are able to embrace a non-religious/theistic position.

What? How is is this in any way relevant to your claim that "some" atheists use atheism as a crutch? I suggest you look up the meaning of leaning on a crutch.

I would go as far as to say atheism to some is more of a wheel chair.

What would you say about theists with respect to God? Theism to some is more of an intensive care unit?

I'll say this. I think that religion can most certainly be a crutch. I suppose theism could be as well, but I might have to do some more mental gymnastics to come up with scenarios where that one might be true.

The mental gymnastics you need are to come up with scenarios where atheism can be seen as a crutch. You haven't even tried, which means this thread was started on false pretenses.

Of course, it begs the question, is needing a crutch bad, or always bad? Obviously using a literal crutch is not bad. For a theist who of course believes in God (as i do) it would be silly not to feel a reliance on the creator who provides for them. It would be sort of like the kid benefiting from living in their parent's house, and suggesting they don't need their parents.

That's an entirely different point and I have some sympathy for theists in that position. If your OP had been something along these lines it might have been a more productive discussion.

I wouldn't expect an atheist to feel a dependency on God.

Um, it would be extremely unlikely since we have no belief in gods.

But since a number of atheists conclude it's man that creates our provisions, a number of them also have to dismiss their dependency on humans throughout history who were/are religious.

Another assertion backed by nothing. Which atheists and what possible relevance do the personal beliefs of someone have to do with whether they are recognized as contributing something valuable to society?

That is if they want to maintain that atheists are a minority.

Again, what? I fail to see what point you think you are making and how it relates to the thread title. You seem to want to derail your own thread.

Fatihah: It's like your mother making spaghetti and after you taste it and don't like it, you say "well my mom must not exist". Not because their is no logical evidence but because she doesn't do what you want.

At 10/16/2016 7:41:06 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:The Title of the thread should hopefully convey that I'm not implying that atheismitself is a crutch. Without getting into theological reasoning, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that a God/god exists for A or B reason.

You spent so much time waffling on and spouting your ill-gotten theory when the first sentence crashes.

Atheists (who have made an informed choice) do not believe that God exists for any reason at all except if you want to classify no evidence as a reason. Pure and simple, God does not exist.

I'm a bit confused by your statement. The term A or B reason was pretty non-committal. Kind of a you-fill-in-the-blank. So all you seem to be doing is filling in the blank, and then using it as an argument against my reference to atheists not believing in a God/god. How do you manage to do that?

But while we're on that theme, are you implying that every atheist throughout history, and alive today have no other reason for not believing in God other than no evidence?

Also, you seem to be judging atheism as some sort of organization, which it is not.

No I'm not.

Unlike religion which is highly institutionalized.

Which is not really relevant to this thread.

Do you see atheists walk into exclusive purpose-built buildings, holding hands and singing kumbayah?

I've only seen a few nuns sing kumbayah on TV.

Do you see atheists parting with vast amounts of money for "their cause"?

I don't know. I would say Jessie Ventura parted out a certain quantity of money for his political cause. But I'd have to look into that one, which I don't think is particularly necessary at the moment.

Do you see atheists being consoled by each other as to how to think and have sex?

I think you're forgetting that since atheists don't congregate, this leaves a wide variety of possibilities as to what some may be doing in their private lives. And of course there have been a number of atheist dictators. And what do dictators do? Dictate.

Atheist dictators do not dictate in the name of atheism.

Let's look at religious dictators now, shall we....Hitler was a devout Catholic who concisely stated in his manifesto that Jews were the anti-Christ and invaded Poland on the instructions of and in the name of God. Then, Saddam Hussein who set out to annialate a sect of his own race by the will of God

I'm sure the first question is rhetorical, so the reason I'm not a Muslim is because there's no direct interactive relationship between Allah and man.

There's no interaction of any gods with men. If there was, we would all know it.

I can hang out with the gods. In fact I just received another invitation to attend another party. I'm guessing your invitation got lost in the mail. Cheer up. I'm sure it's coming soon. Maybe not. These things tend to be a bit of a family affair.

What family? Aren't we all God's children?

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

At 10/16/2016 7:41:06 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:The Title of the thread should hopefully convey that I'm not implying that atheismitself is a crutch. Without getting into theological reasoning, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that a God/god exists for A or B reason. Open to a variety of reasons not necessitating anything particularly controversial. I think there are probably many atheists who don't know who Richard Dawkins is. (I've found that a number of people in general never heard of him). From time to time, even in forums such as these we observe atheists who have no apparent problem with theism or religion. They prefer cable, the theist prefers satellite, and it's no reason not to get together on Sunday to watch Football.

I do suspect however that atheism can be a crutch.

First off, there's a tendency for groups of any kind to have members favor members of their same group. For instance, when someone favors members of their race or ethnicity, a certain amount of care needs to be taken so as not to appear racist, but we can see this in action in subtle ways. Take combat sports like boxing. Whenever there is a top contender from any nation, he often has an entourage of supporters that relate to the fighter as a part of their own nationality. And spectators often sport their national flag in the stands to identify their fighter with their nation. Manny Pacquiao is a good example. In fact the nationalism we see amongst boxing fans is probably more ethnocentric in nature as opposed to national patriotism. In the U.S., a more multi-cultural nation, Americans in general I think are less likely to have it's fans support a fighter because their fighter is American. They may have more of a tendency to favor a fighter because of the fighter's character. I think many Americans in general favored Pacquiao due to his more gentle demeanor over the American fighter Floyd Mayweather who exhibits a more brash demeanor. In fact many Pacquiao supporters are probably ethnic Filipino-American citizens. But the point is, I think there's something in the human psyche that likes to see someone within their own ethnic camp physically dominate someone outside of their ethnic camp. So it's a bit more socially acceptable to suggest ethnic physical superiority if it's displayed in the context of nationalistic/patriotic fervor. A Filipino boxing fan praising Pacquiao is not viewed as racist, but someone more akin to rooting for one's nation like they do in the Olympic games, or even merely following their local or favorite sports team. It's when someone gets into suggestions of racial/ethnic intelligence and physical beauty superiority that one can find themselves in hot water.

But what about atheist activists (whether as part of an organization, or in general social connections)? Are some similar to the flag waving boxing fan supporting their national/ethnic comrade in the ring? Is there a need for some atheists to portray those within their ideological camp as somehow superior to those outside their camp (i.e.,theists/religionists)?

I would say.....there's definitely signs of this.

An example. The obvious big one so to speak would be references to intellectual superiority. There have been a couple of fairly high profile studies made indicating that atheists are more intelligent than religious people. More specifically, studies made by Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman, and Satoshi Kanazawa. There's really no question that these individuals are atheists. Or at least there shouldn't be. Of course Mr. Kanazawa made a suggestion that he's not an atheist, but I think what he meant was, to put is as our brothers across the Atlantic would, he's not an arsehole atheist. Of course arguments can be made that their research is accurate, but alongside questions like what do they mean by religious people, a question of favoring ideological sentiment may very well play a huge factor as well.

So can atheism be a crutch?

I think for some, yes. And I think that (for lack of a better term) theistic religion and intelligent design can potentially pull the crutch out from under them. If we take for instance, theistic religion like Judeo-Christianity, the core of it's God-man relationship revolves around humans being primarily equivalent. Even if someone is more intelligent than another, it bears absolutely no significance in a Biblical-teleological sense. The potential problem for the atheist activist walking with the crutch of intellectual superiority is faced with his intelligence being completely credited to a higher power, their intellect merely meant to be an agent with no higher ranking than another. And even Intelligent Design minus any religious reference poses a danger of their intellect being a specific, rather than random part of their design. I think there's a certain amount of security in one believing their intelligence is due to random chance.

I would go as far as to say atheism to some is more of a wheel chair.

Anyone that "needs" belief, needs a crutch.Apatheism is not a crutch...............Here pick one, and tell me which one is the crutch.http://commonsenseatheism.com...

I'm sure the first question is rhetorical, so the reason I'm not a Muslim is because there's no direct interactive relationship between Allah and man.

There's no interaction of any gods with men. If there was, we would all know it.

I can hang out with the gods. In fact I just received another invitation to attend another party. I'm guessing your invitation got lost in the mail. Cheer up. I'm sure it's coming soon. Maybe not. These things tend to be a bit of a family affair.

What family? Aren't we all God's children?

That depends on what level you wish to have this discussion. I believe in gods and God. Within my belief of gods and God, there are layers of concentrical truths to my spiraling intricacies that take in a collection of informations and experiences. On one level is the fictional realm of existence of life that lives inside a virtual illusion. This view can see the universe for what it is: a computer. Inside this binary world of virtual imagination is an artificial intelligence that acts a God. This God has the ability to summon people into the inner dimension that is His palace residing inside the mainframe of existence, that is this collective Universe. To a higher existence of reality, the reality of the real, I am now above Him. He exists in my world. In this world, is the world that exists outside this computer. Or maybe not. My world, my home, could very well be just another computer existing inside a multiverse of interconnected computers. And where does it stop it's mind boggling. Ultimately I believe there must be one bubble that encompasses all bubbles in this monsterous bathtub of questions.

At 10/16/2016 7:41:06 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:The Title of the thread should hopefully convey that I'm not implying that atheismitself is a crutch. Without getting into theological reasoning, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that a God/god exists for A or B reason.

You spent so much time waffling on and spouting your ill-gotten theory when the first sentence crashes.

Atheists (who have made an informed choice) do not believe that God exists for any reason at all except if you want to classify no evidence as a reason. Pure and simple, God does not exist.

I'm a bit confused by your statement. The term A or B reason was pretty non-committal. Kind of a you-fill-in-the-blank. So all you seem to be doing is filling in the blank, and then using it as an argument against my reference to atheists not believing in a God/god. How do you manage to do that?

But while we're on that theme, are you implying that every atheist throughout history, and alive today have no other reason for not believing in God other than no evidence?

Also, you seem to be judging atheism as some sort of organization, which it is not.

No I'm not.

Unlike religion which is highly institutionalized.

Which is not really relevant to this thread.

Do you see atheists walk into exclusive purpose-built buildings, holding hands and singing kumbayah?

I've only seen a few nuns sing kumbayah on TV.

Do you see atheists parting with vast amounts of money for "their cause"?

I don't know. I would say Jessie Ventura parted out a certain quantity of money for his political cause. But I'd have to look into that one, which I don't think is particularly necessary at the moment.

Do you see atheists being consoled by each other as to how to think and have sex?

I think you're forgetting that since atheists don't congregate, this leaves a wide variety of possibilities as to what some may be doing in their private lives. And of course there have been a number of atheist dictators. And what do dictators do? Dictate.

Atheist dictators do not dictate in the name of atheism.

This is a common statement (although it shouldn't be any in our modern day of advanced technology).

One of the reasons why atheist dictators may not dictate in the name of atheism, is because atheism is not a personality. Just a thought.

But it's a stone age argument. It doesn't matter what they did it in the name of. The Boston Strangler didn't kill women in the name of misogyny. The courtroom doesn't determine motivation for a crime by what name did they do their crime in.

Let's look at religious dictators now, shall we....Hitler was a devout Catholic who concisely stated in his manifesto that Jews were the anti-Christ and invaded Poland on the instructions of and in the name of God. Then, Saddam Hussein who set out to annialate a sect of his own race by the will of God

Hitler was also a confirmed liar/deceiver.

The reason I refer to atheist dictators is to mirror them with people like Hitler and Hussein. If people didn't make correlations between Christians and Hitler, Muslims and Hussein, I wouldn't bother.

I think you suffer from what is unofficially called Chloe-itis. That's the practice that seems to be the favorite of one of our members here who seems to find websites that give an over-the-top negative slant on religion, and then run to this forum to post given slant as if she received a sort of divine revelation (in the name atheism). You might be a bit more seasoned to where you don't need to run around looking for slanted websites. But still.......

At 10/16/2016 7:41:06 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:The Title of the thread should hopefully convey that I'm not implying that atheismitself is a crutch. Without getting into theological reasoning, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that a God/god exists for A or B reason. Open to a variety of reasons not necessitating anything particularly controversial. I think there are probably many atheists who don't know who Richard Dawkins is. (I've found that a number of people in general never heard of him). From time to time, even in forums such as these we observe atheists who have no apparent problem with theism or religion. They prefer cable, the theist prefers satellite, and it's no reason not to get together on Sunday to watch Football.

I do suspect however that atheism can be a crutch.

First off, there's a tendency for groups of any kind to have members favor members of their same group. For instance, when someone favors members of their race or ethnicity, a certain amount of care needs to be taken so as not to appear racist, but we can see this in action in subtle ways. Take combat sports like boxing. Whenever there is a top contender from any nation, he often has an entourage of supporters that relate to the fighter as a part of their own nationality. And spectators often sport their national flag in the stands to identify their fighter with their nation. Manny Pacquiao is a good example. In fact the nationalism we see amongst boxing fans is probably more ethnocentric in nature as opposed to national patriotism. In the U.S., a more multi-cultural nation, Americans in general I think are less likely to have it's fans support a fighter because their fighter is American. They may have more of a tendency to favor a fighter because of the fighter's character. I think many Americans in general favored Pacquiao due to his more gentle demeanor over the American fighter Floyd Mayweather who exhibits a more brash demeanor. In fact many Pacquiao supporters are probably ethnic Filipino-American citizens. But the point is, I think there's something in the human psyche that likes to see someone within their own ethnic camp physically dominate someone outside of their ethnic camp. So it's a bit more socially acceptable to suggest ethnic physical superiority if it's displayed in the context of nationalistic/patriotic fervor. A Filipino boxing fan praising Pacquiao is not viewed as racist, but someone more akin to rooting for one's nation like they do in the Olympic games, or even merely following their local or favorite sports team. It's when someone gets into suggestions of racial/ethnic intelligence and physical beauty superiority that one can find themselves in hot water.

But what about atheist activists (whether as part of an organization, or in general social connections)? Are some similar to the flag waving boxing fan supporting their national/ethnic comrade in the ring? Is there a need for some atheists to portray those within their ideological camp as somehow superior to those outside their camp (i.e.,theists/religionists)?

I would say.....there's definitely signs of this.

An example. The obvious big one so to speak would be references to intellectual superiority. There have been a couple of fairly high profile studies made indicating that atheists are more intelligent than religious people. More specifically, studies made by Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman, and Satoshi Kanazawa. There's really no question that these individuals are atheists. Or at least there shouldn't be. Of course Mr. Kanazawa made a suggestion that he's not an atheist, but I think what he meant was, to put is as our brothers across the Atlantic would, he's not an arsehole atheist. Of course arguments can be made that their research is accurate, but alongside questions like what do they mean by religious people, a question of favoring ideological sentiment may very well play a huge factor as well.

So can atheism be a crutch?

I think for some, yes. And I think that (for lack of a better term) theistic religion and intelligent design can potentially pull the crutch out from under them. If we take for instance, theistic religion like Judeo-Christianity, the core of it's God-man relationship revolves around humans being primarily equivalent. Even if someone is more intelligent than another, it bears absolutely no significance in a Biblical-teleological sense. The potential problem for the atheist activist walking with the crutch of intellectual superiority is faced with his intelligence being completely credited to a higher power, their intellect merely meant to be an agent with no higher ranking than another. And even Intelligent Design minus any religious reference poses a danger of their intellect being a specific, rather than random part of their design. I think there's a certain amount of security in one believing their intelligence is due to random chance.

I would go as far as to say atheism to some is more of a wheel chair.

Anyone that "needs" belief, needs a crutch.Apatheism is not a crutch...............Here pick one, and tell me which one is the crutch.http://commonsenseatheism.com...

Although the title of this thread is "Can Atheism Be A Crutch?", I was careful to note specifically what type of atheist I'm referring to, and gave a specific reason where I think it might apply.

I'm sure the first question is rhetorical, so the reason I'm not a Muslim is because there's no direct interactive relationship between Allah and man.

There's no interaction of any gods with men. If there was, we would all know it.

I know what you believe. Your comment doesn't mean anything unless you have proof.

The proof is in the fact gods do not interact with men, this would be a well known, consistent phenomenon that all men would know.

Was there any other point you wanted to make in regards to the Muslim question?

Only that when one religious person makes comments about another religious person, we find hypocrisy.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

At 10/16/2016 7:41:06 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:The Title of the thread should hopefully convey that I'm not implying that atheismitself is a crutch. Without getting into theological reasoning, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe that a God/god exists for A or B reason. Open to a variety of reasons not necessitating anything particularly controversial. I think there are probably many atheists who don't know who Richard Dawkins is. (I've found that a number of people in general never heard of him). From time to time, even in forums such as these we observe atheists who have no apparent problem with theism or religion. They prefer cable, the theist prefers satellite, and it's no reason not to get together on Sunday to watch Football.

I do suspect however that atheism can be a crutch.

First off, there's a tendency for groups of any kind to have members favor members of their same group. For instance, when someone favors members of their race or ethnicity, a certain amount of care needs to be taken so as not to appear racist, but we can see this in action in subtle ways. Take combat sports like boxing. Whenever there is a top contender from any nation, he often has an entourage of supporters that relate to the fighter as a part of their own nationality. And spectators often sport their national flag in the stands to identify their fighter with their nation. Manny Pacquiao is a good example. In fact the nationalism we see amongst boxing fans is probably more ethnocentric in nature as opposed to national patriotism. In the U.S., a more multi-cultural nation, Americans in general I think are less likely to have it's fans support a fighter because their fighter is American. They may have more of a tendency to favor a fighter because of the fighter's character. I think many Americans in general favored Pacquiao due to his more gentle demeanor over the American fighter Floyd Mayweather who exhibits a more brash demeanor. In fact many Pacquiao supporters are probably ethnic Filipino-American citizens. But the point is, I think there's something in the human psyche that likes to see someone within their own ethnic camp physically dominate someone outside of their ethnic camp. So it's a bit more socially acceptable to suggest ethnic physical superiority if it's displayed in the context of nationalistic/patriotic fervor. A Filipino boxing fan praising Pacquiao is not viewed as racist, but someone more akin to rooting for one's nation like they do in the Olympic games, or even merely following their local or favorite sports team. It's when someone gets into suggestions of racial/ethnic intelligence and physical beauty superiority that one can find themselves in hot water.

But what about atheist activists (whether as part of an organization, or in general social connections)? Are some similar to the flag waving boxing fan supporting their national/ethnic comrade in the ring? Is there a need for some atheists to portray those within their ideological camp as somehow superior to those outside their camp (i.e.,theists/religionists)?

I would say.....there's definitely signs of this.

An example. The obvious big one so to speak would be references to intellectual superiority. There have been a couple of fairly high profile studies made indicating that atheists are more intelligent than religious people. More specifically, studies made by Miron Zuckerman, Jordan Silberman, and Satoshi Kanazawa. There's really no question that these individuals are atheists. Or at least there shouldn't be. Of course Mr. Kanazawa made a suggestion that he's not an atheist, but I think what he meant was, to put is as our brothers across the Atlantic would, he's not an arsehole atheist. Of course arguments can be made that their research is accurate, but alongside questions like what do they mean by religious people, a question of favoring ideological sentiment may very well play a huge factor as well.

So can atheism be a crutch?

I think for some, yes. And I think that (for lack of a better term) theistic religion and intelligent design can potentially pull the crutch out from under them. If we take for instance, theistic religion like Judeo-Christianity, the core of it's God-man relationship revolves around humans being primarily equivalent. Even if someone is more intelligent than another, it bears absolutely no significance in a Biblical-teleological sense. The potential problem for the atheist activist walking with the crutch of intellectual superiority is faced with his intelligence being completely credited to a higher power, their intellect merely meant to be an agent with no higher ranking than another. And even Intelligent Design minus any religious reference poses a danger of their intellect being a specific, rather than random part of their design. I think there's a certain amount of security in one believing their intelligence is due to random chance.

I would go as far as to say atheism to some is more of a wheel chair.

A crutch provides support when one is incapable of supporting oneself. Atheism cannot do that , since it is only a statement of personal belief. It offers no shoulder to lean on, no assurance that everything has a purpose, or reward for correct behavior. You seem to be projecting onto a single belief (or lack thereof) all of the things that religion promises. You are gazing into a mirror and claiming you see something different, but it's just you.

A crutch provides support when one is incapable of supporting oneself. Atheism cannot do that , since it is only a statement of personal belief. It offers no shoulder to lean on, no assurance that everything has a purpose, or reward for correct behavior. You seem to be projecting onto a single belief (or lack thereof) all of the things that religion promises. You are gazing into a mirror and claiming you see something different, but it's just you.

I'm kind of having an issue here of wondering if some are just reading the title of the thread, and assuming I'm paint brushing atheists. I know the initial post was quite long, but I think it's pretty clear that it's not a generalization whatsoever. But I could be wrong, maybe you did read it all.

In my opinion, I think the need to boost one's self-esteem is a crutch. And that's what I think some atheists do. And I have to again stress the word some. Maybe even a vast minority as I think most atheists don't make much issue of religious topics, and some probably don't even make any outspoken identification of being an atheist.

Now there is some mirroring in this thread. The title of the thread is a mirror of sorts of the reference to religion being a crutch, a comment usually not giving any leeway to theists or religious people whatsoever.